Braided Rivers Theory of Reading, Writing, and Thinking

There is no settled Science. Pearson

Science of anything is not simple. Me. 

Braided rivers are geological formations where water seeks it's path to it's lowest point. Water's path back to the origin is often invisible - one environmental cycle over another. The mind's acquisition and use of literacy are no different. 

The Science of Reading movement often focuses on five pillars of the thing - phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension - each supported (and not supported) by a wide range of research that often doesn't say what we are told it says. Sigh. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Scarborough's Reading Rope represents key concepts for literacy pedagogy. But it's not simple. But it's not a panacea for reading woes represented/misrepresented by NAEP and other tests. And the rope and pillars are not the end-all-be-all of scientifically based literacy instruction. And some of the interpretations and implementation in school is flat out nonsense - as the data show us. That simple view just doesn't play out equally in educating the masses or the individual humans we serve. 

Reality is more like the braided rivers analogy - when a path of literacy is blocked - even if it is one of the five pillars, water goes around the obstacle. And the mind -the source of the flow - has multiple streams. All are valid. 

As we've worked with the learners in Unity Learning Communities - the kids have told us these truths through their behaviors and explanations of their learning processes for literate life. 

Here's their trajectory - 

Decoding - encoding - word knowledge - fluency - comprehension = "failure" They've had THE science. They've had the kitchen sink as well. For some, they've encountered the Hoover Dam. Pinched off from the flow of thought - as with electricity - controlled by arbitrary needs for accountability and control over educational curriculum and philosophy. 

Life has presented obstacles that made elements of this path insurmountable for some learners. And some of the problem is that other rivers are not allowed. Shameful. 

What we are seeing is that poverty, trauma, and educational-theoretical malapropisms - and none of it is funny - have become obstacles to literacy acquisition.

There's other rivers out there, y'all. And our kids can travel them to destinations unknown. It's time to recognize the braided rivers - and complex - view of literacy. 

These are some of the rivers that we have found in our explorations with learners: 

Thinking and Reasoning: The decoding-encoding flow: learners hear and represent sounds. Where there are gaps in alphabetic principles and print concepts - what is the learner's response and bank of choices at the point of difficulty? When there are gaps in the principles and concepts - is the learner aware of the gap? When there are gaps - does the learner have resources for information search and discovery? 

Thinking and Reasoning: Word knowledge: learners use semantics with breadth-depth, precision, links to schema, and contextual reasoning. The point here is derivational constancy in decision making about words. Inextricably woven through meaning and desire to communicate, create, curate, and critique, learners use synonyms, antonyms, word origin, context, emotional vocabulary, discipline specific terms and norms of language, registers, and tools synchronously and collectively. Words are never just sounds or terms hanging loose in a universe of nonsense. Yet - that's not how we've been taught to develop word knowledge. 

Thinking and Reasoning: The approach to struggle. Our learners often believe that text doesn't make sense. They try to follow the rules, but know that in the end - they just don't get it. They believe something is wrong with them. They tell us that they try to do what they are told - but it never works or makes sense. As Nottingham tells us, learning is about Eureka! I found it. I found it. I found it. Learners have to make the path in their brain. No one can really make that road for them. No one can tell them about it. Learners are the ones doing the finding. And often, they don't find what we thought they should. And what they find for themselves is brilliant. Learners decide what it is. It is the learner that knows and can find the way around the struggle. Yet - that's not how we teach. 

Thinking and Reasoning: Working memory and holding an idea for inspection. Blame whatever you'd like - but the reality is: learning requires a certain capacity to carry ideas, rotate them with cognitive manipulation and test theories about meaning, purpose, and use. But are we shortening or lengthening working memory with our approach? Are we showing learners how to hold ideas, store and retrieve them, or how to connect them to beauty and power? Are we showing learners how to manage emotions and complex situations that help mediate cognitive struggles? Do we show them how to activate background and schematic families of thoughts that overlap with ideas, concepts and facts like a prizmed Venn diagram (taxon vs locale)? 

Thinking and Reasoning: Expanding definitions, types, and uses of fluency. Rasinski and fluency. I can't say any of that better than him. Other than to remind folks that we are using fluency as tool. We adjust fluency based on our purposes and needs in concert with that of the author's grammatical artifacts of prosody. 

Note: In the program, we have learned that rate, accuracy, and prosody are just a part of the picture. When learners understand syntax (clauses, punctuation), tone, style, emotional vocabulary, and motivation of authors, speakers, and characters...everything changes. Even the decoding. 

We also experience fluency with typing - automaticity in typing so that we can keep up with our ideas as we compose. We become fluent in handwriting to track the flow and rhythm of our ideas and the pace of life. Fluency also means facility - think of the coloratura soprano - moving quickly into arpeggios and through different registers of the voice, throat, head, and chest. Agility with thinking - fluent in finding ways through and toward our goals and interactions with texts and each other. 

Thinking and Reasoning: The digital approach. We explicitly teach kids how to touch and hold books for the reading stance. We explicitly teach how to read static print. Digital texts are tremendously complex. Yet- where is the explicit instruction for the approach to reading pixels? 

There's more to say...but I need to think about some other stuff for a bit...

Am I wrong about vocabulary? Teach me what I don't know. Seriously

Well - I received an email asking if I knew of a vocabulary assessment that a teacher could use to assess the learner's level of vocabulary knowledge and place them effectively for instruction. 

Things to say: 

1.  Well - I have a lot to say about vocabulary. I might be wrong. Teach me.
2. In my experience, vocabulary assessments are often connected to programs that provide explicit instruction or practice on words that the publishers have divided into categories and levels that make sense only unto themselves. You have to buy the whole program and a bunch of workshit books each year. And  - none of the research shows that these programs work overall to improve comprehension, word knowledge or expressive language in speaking or writing. So...no.  
3.  I asked Google Gemini to make me a diagnostic assessment. Here's the conversation: https://g.co/gemini/share/ada01a6b6733  
4. I asked Google Gemini to list free stuff and paid stuff. Here's the convo: https://g.co/gemini/share/f815c6d546e5 Most of what they suggested is crap. 
5. Avril Coxhead's list is a good place to start. She did her doctoral dissertation on this. Her approach and outcomes are similar to what Fry did with his lists. 
1. Here's the convo: https://g.co/gemini/share/f815c6d546e5  
2. and here is Avrils stuff: https://www.eapfoundation.com/vocab/academic/awllists/
6. Some of what learners struggle with isn't exactly vocabulary - it's syntax of questioning that becomes its own kind of vocabulary or way of speaking. Often, this is one of the reasons on-level readers struggle with questions - we just don't ask the questions in that way in our classes. And when we do have syntactically and semantically mature questions and sentences and prompts - teachers paraphrase them without teaching kids how to diffuse the language structures. 
7. Teaching Greek and Latin roots, affixes and derivational constancy from various languages (French, Italian, German, etc.). is probably the best move. There are sites that break them down by grade level. And there are assessments to measure knowledge and mastery.
8. As far as I know, there isn't a great free and effective vocabulary assessment that can be easily administered by teachers in a whole class setting that also helps teachers know where to start kids at a particular level of vocabulary knowledge and then causes growth from there.  

Recommendations: 

• Begin with sight word lists. https://www.bulbapp.com/u/sight-words~5
• The San Diego Assessment is also pretty good but is also associated with reading level and not just semantics. https://www.bulbapp.com/u/oldie-but-goodie-san-diego-quick-assessment
• Issues with decoding must be ruled out before we can tell if the problem is vocabulary or something else. https://www.bulbapp.com/u/decoding 
• Here are some sentence level activities associated with vocabulary: https://www.bulbapp.com/u/syntax-surgery-and-sentence-stuff 
• A deeper understanding of text complexity is also warranted because the way words are used can be nuanced and complex in ways that most reading level formulas cannot capture: https://www.bulbapp.com/u/text-complexity 

The penultimate thought: 

Most of the ways learners are taught to acquire vocabulary are not supported by research. Looking stuff up in the dictionary isn't that helpful. Writing definitions isn't helpful. Completing workshits isn't helpful. ACT word lists and powerpoints and quizzes aren't helpful. Seek and finds aren't helpful. If it looks like a Chili's menu for children, skip it. Every research study ever done shows the highest vocabulary impact comes from wide reading: to, by, and with. 

And last - 

Vocabulary development has overlapping areas, like a complex venn diagram. There's more to vocabulary than assessing and teaching it. 

• Systematic Explicit Vocabulary Instruction: Often left out of today's instructional modes. TEA will be adding key vocabulary lists for each grade level. When I asked TEA about this, they said they were using Children's Writer's Word Book by Alijandra Mogilner and Tayopa Moliner and The Living Word Vocabulary: The Words We Know by Edgar Dale and Joseph O'Rourke to determine if words in passages matched the grade levels. I do not know if they are still using these resources. And - I feel like they weren't supposed to tell me about it. 
• Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: Research shows that we acquire more vocabulary incidentally through wide reading (and comic books) than any other method. 
• Content Vocabulary Acquisition: For ELAR, these are our academic vocabulary terms for skills, characteristics, and genres. For ELAR texts themselves, the vocabulary comes from words central to the message, purpose, theme, or thesis. For SS - These are proper nouns. For Science: the vocabulary represents processes. For math: the vocabulary represents mathematics concepts and processes. FOR ELAR, we have content vocab about reading and writing itself. For content area specific words, these are terms that are used primarily in that content area and not used (or used differently) in another content area. 
• Emotional Vocabulary/Traits: For ELAR, much of our vocabulary development comes in the form of inferences readers make about character motivations, traits, and feelings; and tone/mood distinctions. These are the words we use to talk about the text and the author's craft and purpose. We don't always see these words in the texts themselves. Sometimes. But not always. How are we teaching and exposing learners to this line of words? Research tells us that many of our behavior problems are because people don't have the words to even name anything beyond the basic: happy- sad-mad-glad. 
• Academic Vocabulary: I think this is often confused with content vocab. Academic vocabulary is really more about thinking and reasoning. It is also how those terms flow in phrases and clauses. It's not just about single words but how they are used in context of grammar and culture. People will tell you that academic vocab is about the content - but it's really about the ways in which we talk about and process the content to make decisions.  In ELAR, we have process level vocabulary for comprehension and composition that are parsed in multiple ways. 

Resources

• My Emotional Vocabulary File: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4066e-vKQkmWlhFb3Q5WFFmeW8?resourcekey=0-6UZltHOAngHoaInnHd9adQ&usp=drive_link 
• Vocabulary Activities for Drama File: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4066e-vKQkmWlhFb3Q5WFFmeW8?resourcekey=0-6UZltHOAngHoaInnHd9adQ&usp=drive_link 
• Vocabulary Day 2 File: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4066e-vKQkmUmFFY3VwcFdEQ0k?resourcekey=0-Ztse7dPuITZ4slXH2tLRNQ&usp=drive_link 
• Vocabulary for the English Classroom File: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4066e-vKQkmUmFFY3VwcFdEQ0k?resourcekey=0-Ztse7dPuITZ4slXH2tLRNQ&usp=drive_link 

Whew - Vocabulary rant over. I'll keep looking. 

SR

Testing Behaviors

 I was thinking about monitoring testing behaviors while doing hall duty for STAAR. Just brainstorming. Thoughts? 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mtZKhmzN3blbHVyHEvyToLUZ0lyWypxSAbIGq7uJ2dk/edit?usp=sharing 

Teacher Ed: Developing a Watch List of Practices and Replacements for Literacy Ed

I'm teaching a graduate college class called Literacy Acquisition: Process and Pedagogy. GEEKING OUT and loving it.

In our main project, we develop a position statement on an important topic in literacy acquisition. Then we write a Watch List of what to look for in materials and in instruction that doesn't match the population we serve, the research, or the outcomes we seek for learners. 

The following is the example I provided for dyslexia instruction. 

Composing the Watch List: I'm focusing on problems I'm seeing in dyslexia instruction in the middle school age group. 

1. Students experiencing difficulty with dyslexia in middle school, and have already had science of teaching reading interventions in elementary school don't need more of the same stuff such as Read Naturally. If phonics didn't work the first time, then what makes us think it will work the next time? It's been my experience that kids who have to do tasks from early school time feel like they are being treated like babies and end up chunking any form of engagement out the door. Research tells us this is true as well: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582893.pdf 

2. Carefully consider materials for inaccuracies and mismatches to the population you serve. 

Example one: The word is few. In the program, they code the word /f/ /yoo/. Um. Have you met a middle school kid? I'm not sure that eff you needs to be a part of our distractions during reading intervention. 

Example two: A common program asks learners to box off affixes and underline roots or base words. Prediction and minimum are the examples provided. The program coded prediction as: pre dict ion. Minimum was coded as min i mum.

SOOOOO many problems with this.

First - there is a misunderstanding of what root words are and how they are employed in words. If you use the meaning of "to say" in a word, you can use -dic- or -dict- depending on the Latin or Greek rules that govern the use. If you are wanting to say "small, limited, or short" the form is both -min- and -mini- depending on Latin and Greek grammar. The way the program divided and categorized the word messed up the meaning. 

Second - if we are teaching kids to read words - tion is a unit of meaning that makes a word a noun (which is also a Latin, Greek artifact). You really wouldn't ever divide the word without using the tion in the last syllable. For minimum, the root is -min- or -mini- depending on the grammar from the language of origin. Just like we had in prediction. The program also calls the /i/ syllable an affix by the coding. Ridiculous. There are no affixes in minimum. 

Third - What the heck are kids supposed to do with this information? Is it a reading activity? A vocabulary study? A syllabication activity? A distinction without a difference in application? An activity more suited for a person studying advanced linguistics? The activity is just a hot mess and should be avoided altogether unless the point is to cause confusion and develop a theory of reading that isn't altogether helpful. 

Basically - the program is flat out wrong in content and approach. Dangerous stuff. It's unlikely to reach the goals of supporting kids who already struggle with the code by asking them to code more stuff. This kind of junk HURTS kids. They score worse when they are through with the intervention than before they had the "support." 

Getting them to read (,) right (?)

 Getting them to read right. As in correct.

Getting them to read, right? Like, at all. 

Right now, our biggest hurdle is getting kids to read. 

• They are still reading the questions and scanning. 
• Or they are just reading the questions and choosing an answer. 
• Or they are reading, struggling to make it make sense.
• Or they start reading and get tired.
• Or they look at it, and realize they are bored already.

None of our lessons and reviews on TEKS and questions are going to amount to a hill of beans - or even cow patties - if they aren't even reading. On all the days ending in y or on the test day. 

Here's some ideas: 

Show me your screen: 

Have kids open up their screens and show you what they do first, second, and third. Have them show you what they do with the tools. Then tell them to stop all that crap, expand the text, turn on the damn line reader, and actually read the thing. 

Manage your energy: 

Look. On test day, we get tired. It makes sense to start with the hard stuff first. Use the next key to next all the stuff until you see the pencil. This is the icon that tells you that that passage has the long text you have to write. Start there. Read the second paragraph in the prompt and use that to set your purpose - reason - for reading. 

Then find the questions that ask you to use two passages. Now read the first passage and answer those questions. Then read the second passage and answer those questions. Then use both passages to answer questions about both of the passages. 

Then go back to number one on the test and do those parts after you take a break. 

Stop Boring Yourself

Guys, when I listen to kids read...it's torture. As teachers, we have to back up and teach people how to stay interested in a text by reading with prosody. The voice in their head - their reader's ear - can't be boring. There must be emphasis, tone, phrasing, soft and loud...an actor reading lines in their head, a grandma reading a story, a newscaster explaining a disaster, a podcaster on a true crime series, a youtuber unveiling a toy or doing a game walkthrough, some crazy-Texas-accented-eccentric-white-lady-who-overdoes-it-all... Something interesting. Anything but that monotone bored teenager in the seat and stuck in a room for five hours. Seriously, why would they torture themselves like that? Stop the madness. 

Point of Difficulty

There's a lot involved in reading. And kids need a strategy for each component when they struggle. 

Decoding - try breaking up the letters, three at a time and stacking them on top of each other

con

trib

ute

Say each line one at a time. Then put it all together. If it sounds like a word you know, you are good to go. If you don't know the word, have the dictionary tool say it for you so you can figure out the meaning that goes with the sounds. 

Purpose - Decide what genre it is. That helps you know what to expect and the voice you need to hear in your head. Are you grandma reading a story, a slam poet, or a documentarian? 

There's more to say...but our instruction has to help kids know what to do when stuff doesn't make sense.

Understand Why

Most kids think they have to do well to pass the grade or to graduate. That's actually not why. The real why is that Texas wants to know that they aren't releasing a giant population of fools into the world. And people who can't read something and use it to make decisions -well, they are easily fooled. The world will take advantage of folks like that. The point of all the assessment is to determine if learners are capable of making decisions that make their lives better. Sure - the test isn't really gonna make life better. But knowing the true purpose and showing competence to get the thing over with sure does make the retesting pain shorter. 

NOTE- I'm working with some specific lessons to resolve these issues with Unity Learning Communities - we'll be trying them out and reporting on the impact. 

Documenting Process for ULC: Assessing Learners in the Beta Group

Reading Test:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DZdSND6n3wvdwFBm3mDSDH2tSu8OZGmvfqyXt4kSPw0/edit?usp=sharing 

This used to be a purple ditto. Mom had it in her notebook of quick assessments she used at Humphrey's Highland. I have no idea where it came from. But... it's short. It's accurate when I've used it with longer comprehension assessments- and I have no idea why. 

Here's what I'm playing with. We give assessments to figure out what we are supposed to teach but we don't know. I'm not sure that is working. These errors/miscues tell us what they know about the reading process - their beliefs about what reading is. So - for the first time, I'm looking at the errors with a different lens. What do these behaviors mean in terms of their approach cognitively to reading? What do they actually think they are doing? Because they aren't TRYING to make errors. They believe something that causes these choices that aren't just related to what they don't know. 

G - 

3.8 - abo... (self corrected) approve

4.4 -hesitation, quite...I don't know. (quality)

4.8 - that's hard too! (grieve)

5.1 - k...I don't know how to say that (quarrantine)

5.2 - con...contay...looks up and moves on

5.3 - glol...gloltten...glulton

5.4 - ex...hah...uh...I don't know 

G is solid with decoding and vocabulary until about the fourth grade level (4.3). Her vocabulary seems to be at a similar level. Once she gets to multiple syllable words, g/c combos, and advanced vowel patterns, she doesn't seem to know what to do to solve the words. She stops and just explains that she doesn't know how to approach the word. She can begin the first three to four letters, but does not go much beyond the beginning for most words. 

For the spelling assessment, she spelled "tran" for train, "fram" for frame, "chouch" for couch, and "squiril", suggesting that she may be between within word and syllable juncture. 

Emerging theory of reading: 

• I don't expect words to make sense. 
• I don't know a lot of vocabulary. 
• When I come to a word I don't know, I don't really know what to do. Words baffle me. 
• I look at the initial parts of the words and scan through. If the initial sounds don't make sense, I realize that I did something wrong and move on. 
•  I hear and represent syllables and sounds in my writing, but I'm not sure about the letters for vowel sounds. 
• I remember visual things about some words and try to write them down like I remember them. 

Ae- 

1.6 - block for book; self corrected

4.1 - spilt for split

4.6 - yurge for urge

4.7 - collapson for collapse

4.8 - grinnive for grieve

5.1 - kwaratine for quarrantine

5.2 - corage - for contagious

glooton - glutton; implee for imply; three hold for threshold; eethics for ethics (SC); deslot for desolate

I should have stopped Am earlier, but she was so energetic and positive (3.9). She doesn't seem to understand that the words she is reading don't make sense - which suggests a lack of vocabulary as well as a theory of reading that things just don't make sense. She's using the initial visual and some of the ending of words. She is not smooth tracking through words, and misses the penultimate syllable, suggesting a lack of understanding of syllables as well. The lack of knowledge regarding syllables is also causing problems with vowel sounds. 

For the spelling assessment, she was able to spell all words except for the last one - sqirl for squirrel, suggesting that she may be between syllable juncture and derivational constancy. 

Am's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I know that words are supposed to make sense. 
• I don't know a lot of vocabulary. 
• I look at the beginning and end of words but skip the middle. 
• I don't know the sounds of some vowels. 
• When I spell, I try to represent all the sounds, but I don't understand how words are made. 

Ad - 

4.6 - yurg for urge; syllabication; vowel sounds, g2; vocabulary

4.7 - cospsand for collapse (SC) - There's some internal processing here to get from the s to the ll in the middle of the word; vocabulary

5.1 - quarnaty for quarrantine - syllabication; did he see the end of the word? sounds a bit like warranty - vocabulary? 

5.3 - glooton for glutton - syllabication in doubling; vocabulary

5.5 - im plee for imply - vocabulary; knows common y ending as in friendly

5.7 - cometery for contemporary - syllabication, initial and final; not smooth tracking through the whole word; vocabulary - perhaps he knows commentary

5.9 - thersold for threshold -reversals in tracking; sh in syllabication; vocabulary

6.2 - dis o late for desolate - vocabulary

Ad has an approach to words that suggests many gaps in word knowledge and sounds. (6.2?) He never misses three words in sequence. He has an approach to sounding out words, but does not seem to notice that they don't make sense, suggesting a problem with both vocabulary and his theory of reading.  

For the spelling assessment, he spelled fram for frame, struggled with hoping - marking out the e. He spelled squirrel as squrel. He also lets his descending letters sit on the line. This suggests a problem with visual acuity misconceptions during decoding print. Taken with the decoding assessment - Ad seems to be between syllable juncture and derivational constancy. Review for cvce words in syllable juncture is also warranted. 

Ad's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I have some strategies to figure out words, but the gaps in my knowledge are causing problems. 
• I don't know a lot of vocabulary, but I try to make unknown words match the words I do know. 
• When I write, I try to represent all the sounds in words, but I don't really know what to do with vowels. 
• I expect words to make sense, but I make a lot of mistakes and get the wrong idea about meaning.

Zi 

I didn't listen to Zi read words. 

He spelled "squrrel" for "squirrel" 

Au

4.4 - qu...hesitation...quality

5.2 - coura gioust for contagious

5.3 - glooton - for glutton

5.9 - theres hold for threshold

6.1 - ethic for ethics

6.2 - dis so lit for desolate

I should have stopped him after glutton but didn't. He topped out at 4.4, but was able to read several words successfully after that. It appears that he is trying to sound out words, pausing to think silently. He tries to say words that he knows, but they don't match the syllables. He has gaps in phonic and syllable knowledge. 

He spelled clouchk for couch, and spurall for squirrel. He doens't close the loops on the a. To make an f, he makes a t and then adds the curve. 

Au's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I know a lot of words.
• I look at the visual elements of the words until it sounds like a word I know. I do not always look through the whole word. 
• I expect words to make sense. 
• When I write, I try to make all the sounds. 
• I am still confused by the direction the q should go. 

Yi

2.4 - hisself for himself - probably dialect

4.1 - slip for split

4.8 - Griver for grieve

5.1 - hesitation - guarrn...quaranikity for quarrantine

5.5 - implee for imply

5.7 - contemporly - contemporary

5.9 - ther sold for threshold

6 - patience for participate

6.1 - emphasis for ethics

6.2 deslate for desolate

Sbe spelled squarl for squirrel

Yi's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I look at the word as a whole and make a guess about what I think the word it. 
• I don't expect the words to be ones I know. 
• I don't know a lot of words. 
• When I write, I try to use all the syllables and sounds.
• When I write, I do not know the letters for the sounds I want to use. I don't know how to represent syllables yet. 

Ka

3.8 approv for approve

5.3 - glooten for gluton

5.5 - apply for imply

5.7 - con...for contagious

5.8 - theo for theory

5.9 - three hold for threshold

6.1 - ee thics for ethics

6.2 - de sol ate - for desolate

She spelled sqruell for squirrel

Ka's Emerging Theory of Reading: 

• I don't expect words to make sense. 
• I don't know a lot of words. 
• I have strategies for some words, but words like contagious are overwhelming. 
• When I write, I try to represent all the sounds and syllables, but I get confused about the order. I know the letters that should be there, but I don't get them in order. 

Ke

3.5 - Flit - sc

4.7 h - collapse

4.8 h receive for grieve

5.1 quality for quarrantine

5.2 conjurious for contagious

5.4 extreff for exhaust

5.5 implee for imply

image SC

complementar - contempora

thers hold for threshold

h pur...?

enfluences vs ethics

desclorate vs desolate

He spelled fram for frame; chouch for couch; makeing for making; hopeing for hoping; nashioun for nation; sqirr for squirrel

Ke's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I don't expect things to make sense. 
• I look at the beginning and scan through to the end of a word and make up something that makes sense to me. 
• I don't know a lot of words. 
• I have gaps in my phonic and syllabic repertoire. 
• Sometimes, I don't pay attention to the initial visual and make something that seems to fit what I know. 
• When I write, I look to see what others are doing and copy them (Ga, chouch).
• When I write, I try to represent all the sounds, but I don't know the rules for syllables and some sounds. I leave off the ending of words because I scan over them and use all my energy on the beginning. 

Li

2.7 - spill for spell

4.7 collopset -collapse

5 resentir - residence

5.1 qalentin - quarrantine

5.2 - hogerous - contagious

5.3 gloo - glutton

5.4 excaust - exhaust

thero

ther should

paticoppit tate

exuslusive

deloalate

Decoding at 4.9

She spelled freme for frame; spruell for squirrel

Li's Emerging Theory of Reading

• I don't know a lot of words. 
• I don't expect words to make sense.
• I try to sound out words, but I say sounds that don't match the letters. 
• When I write, I still get my letters backward. I'm trying to do the sounds that match the letters. 

Is

1.3 reed for red

4.1 slip for spilt

5.2 conflu for contagious

5.3 - gloot for gluton

5.4 extinguish for exhaust

He spelled fram for frame; coach for couch, hopeing for hoping, going back to add the e after finishing the word; squirrl for squirrel

Decoding - 5.1

Is Emerging Theories of Reading

• I expect words to make sense. 
• I know a lot of words. 
• I try to sound out words, but the sounds get our of order and trigger other words that I think I know. 
• When I write, I try to represent all the sounds, but I get confused when we start to add endings. 

Changing Reader Theories/Beliefs of Reading: Scenario One: Text Structures of Assessment

I've been spending some time with 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th grade folks. We talked. We laughed. I listened to them read and write. I watched them form letters with pencils. I watched them type. We talked about their thinking and how they made decisions. 

Basically - I learned their theories of reading. Their beliefs. And in almost every case, I can pinpoint an assessment practice, curriculum, or pedagogical approach associated with the timeline of legislation or the pendulum of popular thought on how we are supposed to teach. We - the political engine, the commercialization and big business of curriculum, the teacher-pipeline, the assessment-data-standards regime, war, and the cultural-historical approach to teaching how we experienced and were taught - we did this. So did poverty and trauma (Dr. Paul Thomas). And so did too much data. See previous post.

Enough on the problems. 

When you listen to a kid read, you get a pretty good idea of what they believe about reading. 

Scenario One: 

2024 English I STAAR

"H" read aloud for me...He began..."I must admit..." and immediately, I stopped him. You see, he - and every child we talked to that day - had skipped the italicized introduction. 

The italics ARE a key part of understanding the context and trajectory of the story he was about to read. 

In addition, "H" missed that"from"in the title meant that what he was to read was only a small portion of a larger text. "H" did not read the title; therefore, he had no context of the topic, genre, or importance of the text in general. Essentially, "H" does not understand the text structure of digital assessment and excerpts. Any problems with answering questions and overarching considerations about success on the multiple choice are now invalid. The data from his assessment don't mean much, and now his response has also skewed the collective item analysis for the whole data set. 

Most of the time during our data dialogues, we'd look at the items "H" missed and say that he needed work on 6A, 4F, 6D, 8A, 8D, 8B, 4E, 8E, 5B, including SCR, and Multiple Select items. 

Um. No. The gatekeeper to comprehension on this piece is the italicized context. The solution has nothing to do with teaching more lessons on any of those TEKS. The solution stems from contextualizing the characters, setting, and motivation of Mr. McGill. 

And we figured it out by asking some kids to read to us and show us what they do when they take the assessment. 

The Problem with Data is Itself

 STAAR, MAP, DIBLES, Dabbles, Dribbles...

The problem with data is itself. (Caveat - I do love a significant item analysis paired with their stimulus.)

There's just so much data. And we collect more of it before we can do anything with what we already have. 

And...none of it tells you why there's a problem. We never know what really caused the results. 

And...none of it tells you what we can do about it. 

Ah. Kid - you failed STAAR again. Kid, you passed that test, but you didn't show growth. Kid - you are a hopper -you moved from one data bucket to another: GOOD JOB.  Kid - you are in the low approaches bucket. Teacher - your kids aren't on track to pass this year. Let's have a data-dig-dialogue and talk about all the data that shows we aren't where we want to be. Teacher, looks like your kids need more on 13A.144.56F. What did you do wrong to teach that? 

Um. Y'all. This discussion is nuts. We waller around in statistical **** that doesn't tell us what we are using it for. (I've blogged about that before...for example, STAAR isn't meant to be a single TEK focused instructional tool. It's to be considered as a holistic view of whether or not a kid is on grade level.) 

If we haven't acted on the data we have, new data isn't really going to tell us something we didn't already know other than there are kids rising and falling for some invisible reason. We can't show causality or even correlation with instructional/programmatic/curricular actions. 

If the data don't tell us why, then we probably aren't making good instructional decisions for anyone. 

If the data don't tell us why, then we certainly can't tell how we should respond to individuals or collections of them. 

Honestly, the problem with data is that it is legion (Mark 5:9). Ubiquitous. And most of the time absolutely a waste of time and money. Unless you talk to the human that took the assessment. 

Only then, can the teacher as scientist and artist, master of the instructional craft and relationship with the learner, make powerful decisions about what that person needs next. Understanding why and how requires a transaction (Vygotsky - sociocultural acquisition) with the learner about their transaction with the text (Rosenblatt) and the author and their own learning processes (Hattie). Data can't do that. The master teacher - in relationship with the learner and with deep instructional pedagogical prowess - the teacher can do what no data can. 

(I'll be writing next about how we can listen to kids read, talk to them, and understand what causes their responses to reading, writing, and thinking.) 

Vouchers: A Conversation with Representatives

Follow the sequence with me. And then I'll share some insights. 

I posted this on Facebook:

Then I wrote to my representatives. 

Subject:
Vouchers: No

Message:
I don't guess you need a long email of reasons. I encourage you to go against anything about vouchers disguised as school choice. I encourage you to fund - fully fund all state mandates and support teachers and schools with living life in this century. Sincerely, Shona Rose, PhD Texas Tech, West Texas A&M, Unity Learning Communities

I received this response on Feb 10th. I did not hear from my senator. Probably because the bill has already left that side of congress.  

Dr. Rose,

 

Thank you for reaching out to our office and letting Representative Fairly know about your stance on school vouchers. I am sorry to hear that you are worried about the potential impacts of the bill, but I can promise you that Representative Faily is dedicated to the Panhandle and wants to make sure that if vouchers pass, they do not harm rural school districts. She understands the vast importance of public schools, and what they mean to local communities, the communities she represents most of all. We will make sure that she is aware of your position and your reasoning! Please never hesitate to reach out in the future, whether you have questions, a policy preference or anything else in between!

 

Take care,

 

Michael Davis

Legislative Director

State Representative Caroline Fairly

Capitol: 512-463-0470

Insights

Representatives are listening and responding. 

They are looking at your social media and digital presence. 

The language of "if vouchers pass" does not make me feel better. 

Page to Pixel: Reading Digitally; Assessment Success

 A while ago, I worked on a project with Sirius Education Solutions to explain some strategies that were helping kids read online. And, we looked at how we use some of those strategies for online assessment. 

There are several lessons, each with a description, lesson, video, and TEKS commentary. 

Here's what we have for you so far: 

Page to Pixel: Improving Digital Reading for Students Begins By Understanding How We All Read on Screens

Reading Pixels: A Canyon Metaphor (Addresses working memory.) 

Working Memory and Screen Components

Working Memory and Comprehension: Retrieving and Storing Memories

Working Memory: Background to Causing Memory

Feeding the Hippocampus: Causing Memory

Familiarity vs Fluency: Line Reader and Scroll Bar Tools

Working Memory: Familiarity and Fluency with the Hide Reveal Tool

Working Memory: An Experiment

Question Temptation

Digital Tracking of Words

Genre Characteristics: Apples, Oranges, and Grapefruits

Preparing the Mental Meal

Offloading Working Memory

The Scroll Bar, Comprehension, and Questions: Digital Tools

Genre Structure and the Notepad

We have more in the pipeline...do you need more?